Simon Raboczi <raboczi@PIsoftware.com> wrote:
> I basically agree with this, but I'd suggest doing it as a non-binary
> relation (RDF M&S section 7.3) and using rdf:value instead of (or in
> addition to) dc:title. The RDF processor might not know that the property
> dc:title is more appropriate than the others as a default literal value.
> It does know that rdf:value is special.
Yes, but in this situation, I think rdf:value might be too special.
rdf:value seems to imply that the other properties are qualifications of the
primary value, not properties of a resource. The example given in the spec
is:
rdf:value "500" ;
:measurement :pounds .
resulting in "500 pounds". We're not doing that here, we're instead
providing a title, so dc:title is more appropriate.
I'm a member of the DCMI Architecture WG and we're working on a "dumb-down"
system to allow Dublin Core and RDF applications to receive literal values
from complex data like this. Using dc:title and rdfs:label are both
acceptable according to the spec.
More information and a demo at:
http://zoe.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE/dc/
--
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]